![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hi William, just found this, might be of interest if you have not previously seen it:
Who let the dogs in? A review of the recent genetic evidence for the introduction of the dingo to Australia and implications for the movement of people Melanie A. Fillios, Paul S.C. Taçon. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports Volume 7, June 2016, Pages 782–792
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16300694
(By the way, they use the name Canis dingo in that article).
Not sure if it contains anything new, but you never know. Cheers - Tony
Hello all watchers, the latest:
Looked at Y-chromosome (male lineage) rather than mDNA (female lineage). Key findings:
William Harris • (talk) • 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi William, just wondering if you have seen this:
The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species? STEPHEN M. JACKSON, COLIN P. GROVES, PETER J.S. FLEMING, KEN P. APLIN, MARK D.B. ELDRIDGE, ANTONIO GONZALEZ, KRISTOFER M. HELGEN - Zootaxa 4317, September 2017
The paper is here: http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4317.2.1
Here's a link to the full text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319470485_The_Wayward_Dog_Is_the_Australian_native_dog_or_Dingo_a_distinct_species
(their conclusion is that the dingo is a subspecies of domestic dog and is included within Canis familiaris).
Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tony, I have done further work on the Dingo (taxon) and Dingo articles. All good so far, so next stop the (always contentious) Dog. Based on the info you supplied above, it would appear that where I have said:
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gathered together a collection from the Cook voyage and classified the "New Holland dog" as Canis familiaris dingo Blumenbach, 1799
that would be incorrect taxonomy. The correct term should be Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793. If this is the case, then I will simply shorten the sentence to end with Canis familiaris dingo, else our average readers will become confused. You already have it listed in the taxobox. You may have an interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. William Harris • (talk) • 09:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Subsequently in 1799, in the 6th edition of his work Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach treated the dingo as a subspecies of the dog Canis familiaris, thus introducing the usage Canis familiaris dingo for Meyer's taxon.
Hi William, just looking at the dog page and it says this:
In the same year, an application was made to the ICZN to reclassify the dingo to Canis lupus dingo because it was proposed that the wolf (Canis lupus) was the ancestor of dogs and dingoes, however the application was rejected.[38]
This looks distinctly odd to me. ICZN rules on epithets (e.g. "dingo", "familiaris") (what they call species-group names, either at species or subspecies level), genera (genus-group names), and families (family-group names), but not in what combinations they are used (e.g. Canis lupus dingo vs. Canis dingo) - that is the practice of taxonomic opinion, which is outside the remit of ICZN so they would never be asked to rule on this. The info is sourced from "Smith, Bradley (2015). "Chapter 1:The Dingo Debate". In Bradley Smith. The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation" but still looks erroneous - perhaps a misunderstanding. I looked at that work and it merely cites MSW first edition, 1982 at this point. That chapter is also misinformed when it says that "the official taxonomic name of the dingo is Canis dingo". It is not; ICZN in effect ruled that that the *epithet* dingo is to be used as the approved available name for the dingo, as originally proposed in the combination Canis dingo Meyer, however it is not restricted to that combination (which is a taxonomic, not a nomenclatural, assertion). So Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo, and Canis lupus dingo are all in accord with that ICZN Opinion, and (as stated above), the ICZN would have no position on which is "correct" or "official". Just letting you know... Tony 1212 ( talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Opinion 451 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, shall be the oldest available name for the Dingo of Australia (class Mammalia)( source) The ruling suppressed antarcticus. Unfortunately, these rulings often get misinterpreted as declaring it a species. The Jackson et al (2017) Wayward Dog article explains this clearly. Jts1882 | talk 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
More misinformation I'm afraid... from the current Dog page, and probably elsewhere:
In 1926, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) ruled in Opinion 91 that the domestic dog Canis familiaris be placed on its Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology.[3]
Not true. In 1926, Opinion 91, The ICZN placed Canis on the Official List of generic names. It was not until 1955 (Direction 22) that familiaris, Canis was added to the Official List, in a ruling that added type species of a number of mammal genera to the List, see here: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34652714 . In this case, this means that Canis familiaris is the recognised type species for Canis and that any other competing names for the same taxon are unavailable.
Now that is also interesting for another reason (as well as meaning the quoted text is incorrect) - it means in effect (my reading) that if C. familiaris and C. lupus are considered synonymous at species level, then C. familiaris takes precedence, i.e. C. lupus should be a synonym of C. familiaris and not the other way around.
Because this is contrary to current practice e.g. in MSW, I may have to ask my Taxacom colleagues for their considered opinion - unless you have info on this that I do not from your prior consultations?? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 08:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ FunkMonk:, @ Mariomassone:. I just learned about Corinne's passing after dropping into her Talk page to say hello. Additionally, her favorite contact on grammatical matters, User:Rothorpe who had larynx cancer, has not been active on Wikipedia nor heard from since last year. Very sad news. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello M, if that was your proposal earlier today on the Talk page of an article, I am not committing to any new undertakings on Wikipedia at present, even though I generated 3 FA-level wolf articles last year. The "flagship" report on wolves and dogs is due before November, so I am not taking on new commitments until it has been released and integrated onto Wikipedia. To set the scene for it, Freedman and Wayne have jointly authored a summary of all the research - and its shortcomings - up to the end of 2016 here. Additionally, Thalmann and Perri have summarised the genetic evidence up to this year in a secondary source here. These 2 writings set the scene for a future study that would use ancient DNA sequencing across a large number of widely dispersed specimens and a knowledge of ancient human migrations. That would be Larson. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Oknazevad: and @ Mariomassone:. You both have an interest in the two wolf matters below, and the 3 of us have been around Canis long enough to seek each others advice or provide further explanation - we tend to agree more than we disagree on many matters. (I shall never forget that after vonHoldt 2016 was released - "the wolf is a coyote is a wolf" - and raised on the redwolf page, 5 minutes later you were both engaged in a "dog-fight" with one of the locals over on the coyote page.)
When I first read this article, it was clearly badged Canis himalayensis, both in text and in taxobox (with a bunch of hard-cores keeping it that way.) As Woz made no mention of himalayensis in MSW3, I did some research on the taxonomy of the wolves of the Tibetan region. As a result I did the following:
Off the top of my head, the following have found the "Himalayan wolf" to be a "distinct lineage" (evolutionary biologist-speak for a different species or something close to that): Aggawahl 2003, Sharma 2004, Aggawahl 2007, Leonard 2007, Pilot 2010, Koepfli 2015, Werhahn 2017. The massive work of Thalmann 2013 ("the dog is the descendant of an extinct Western European cave wolf domesticated in the time of hunter-gatherers") refused to include his two Himalayan (or Tibetan) wolf specimens as not being representative of lupus. We have secondary sourcing in Miklosi 2015 and at least one of Larson's summary papers acknowledged them. No researcher has disputed that this is a unique lineage, as opposed to the red wolf or the eastern wolf which remain debated. The DNA phylotree does not depict species, it depicts DNA lineages. These lineages on the whole happen to coincide with species (but there are some other odd ones, the "Indian grey wolf" comes to mind). Wikipedia has an article on the Himalayan wolf (I await the day that I can roll it under the Tibetan wolf, but not just yet...) and I believe that it would be remiss of us not to include the Himalayan wolf in the phylogenetic tree of wolf-like canids. It is not as if the wolf does not exist, nor that no research has been done. At no time have I called for the recognition of the Himalayan wolf as himalayensis, by my actions I have done the opposite.
Where does this leave us?
Once these issues are attended to, then we may have some idea of what we are dealing with. I have left the Himalayan wolf in the DNA phylotree - if either of you still have an issue with this then please let me know your views and we can develop a compromise.
Another study on the red wolf. Despite its title, it is a full review of its history and there is an advanced academic copy available here: https://academic.oup.com/jhered/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhered/esy020/5034846?guestAccessKey=ab4a2828-6103-4bb3-a099-0bc09ad1155c
You both will have noticed that I have put a bit of effort into redwolf taxonomy and the taxonomic debate. I am not sure how to progress from here. The remainder of the section "Genetic evidence" from vonHoldt 2011 onwards is convoluted and perhaps incorrect in parts, with more "he said, she said" accounts. The future debate will centre on whole-genome analysis, and currently that section of the article is up to date. My options for the rest of the "Genetic evidence" section are:
I would like to hear your views on what next. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello all watchers, this huge step forward in the process of dog domestication has finally been released:
Our results identify genes that act early in embryogenesis and can confer phenotypes distinguishing domesticated dogs from wolves, such as tameness, smaller jaws, floppy ears, and diminished craniofacial development as the targets of selection during domestication. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0535-2 William Harris • (talk) • 22:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone: there are some nice wolf icons appearing on articles within my strategic interest; many thanks. No canines have appeared in Wikipedia:Today's featured article for some time, and so it is approaching time for Golden jackal to be able to make its appearance there. It would be nice to pick a preferred date for publishing that might be related to the article in some fashion. If you have any preference then please let me know, else I shall progress with the nearest available date in April. William Harris • (talk) • 07:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
A date? Well... 17 August would be an idea, as it would be the third anniversary of the publication of the discovery of Canis anthus. @ William Harris: Mariomassone ( talk) 07:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
history of the dog | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1688 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
Thank you for the Lessons from Corinne, above! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Golden jackal, "a Eurasian canine that is similar in appearance to a small gray wolf" --
This is to let you know that I've scheduled Golden jackal to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 17 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on the article's Talk page. Insisting that your version of the article is correct without doing so is vandalism. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Mariomassone: - its on! Modern wolves trace their origin to a late Pleistocene expansion from Beringia. We cannot use this yet, it is a Biorxiv preprint for peer review. Signed off by Larson himself! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/07/18/370122.full.pdf And yes, the Himalayan wolf and the Indian grey wolf both cannot be included with these; further work needed. William Harris • (talk) • 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Red Wolf aficionados @ Mariomassone: and @ Oknazevad:. There is a new article undergoing peer review - Rediscovery of red wolf ghost alleles in a canid population along the American Gulf Coast: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/18/420356
Briefly, there have been found canids - largely coyote - on Galveston Island, Texas with redwolf alleles (gene expressions) left from a ghost population. These are from a different population to the redwolves in the captive breeding program. More importantly, the evolutionary biologists propose these expressions can be bred back.
L. Rutledge and RKW have argued over the nature of the enigmatic North American canids for the past 20 years. In 2016, B. vonHoldt and RKW told us that based on whole genome sequences, the red wolf was a recent coyote/lupus hybrid. Rutledge and team immediately rebutted it. Now take a look at the authors of this paper on Canis rufus. It would appear that BvH has "dispersed" from the RKW-pack to become alpha for the L.R.-pack. (This may indicate that she has changed her mind on rufus or else both parties are now moving towards a combined position, which would be most helpful right now.) William Harris • (talk) • 10:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I came across this image file ( File:Cerdocyon timeline.png) and wondered if you recognised it. It looks like it is a clip from a published paper rather than the uploaders own work and probably violates copyright.
While looking I found an article ( Zrzavý et al, 2018) which has a comprehensive combined morphological and molecular phylogenetic analysis of extant and extinct canines, including a variety of Canis species. The topology is quite different to the schemes in Evolution of the wolf. Jts1882 | talk 07:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
no spell check or grammar check at eucla, last time I went through JarrahTree 10:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, William Harris. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Happy Wolfenoot to you! -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Mariomassone:, interesting stuff, it reminds me of Wilson's 2000 diagram at Red wolf#Genetic evidence. You know that Greger has not officially published his wolves from Beringia study yet, but he did promised me "more soon". Given that he is attempting to track down both where the dog AND the wolf came from, I will give him a couple of months to deliver. Else, I may be in need of either (a) your canid icon with the question mark on it, or (b) your development of something that resembles being between a dhole and a grey wolf! (This stuff never ends.....) William Harris • (talk) • 09:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone: and @ Oknazevad: (and JTS, Dodger, and any others who also watch this page). Thanks for your support in getting the eastern wolf and red wolf pages sorted out.
1. I have been working slowly over the past year - so as not to "spook the horses" - to bring the eastern wolf and the red wolf back into the lupus/latrans camp. This has now been finalized. I expect that there will be some disruptive editing on the red wolf over the next few months. Is there a third canid from eastern North America? No. Should the red wolf be recognized as a separate species? I agree with one of Bob Wayne's past comments: it is a hybrid, but one so unique it is worth preserving. Perhaps it should be recognized as a lupus/latrans ancient hybrid that has given rise to a new species, and we call that species C. rufus. Nobody has proposed that yet, and I will leave the evolutionary biologists and taxonomists to debate that one. vonHoldt has a new paper (see above section "Red Wolf article on Bio-archive") - it will be interesting to see if it is published in its current form after the findings of Sinding 2018.
2. So with the wolf/coyote camp now tidied up, the path is now clear for the Wikipedia wolf-world to reflect a much bigger picture, the findings of Gopalakrishnan 2018 (see section above "Gopalakrishnan, 2018") who is fairly much the same team from Sinding 2018, who also earlier mapped the wolf reference genome (along with Mr Larson). Where to start - most of the extant Canis has been admixing, some of them may be hybids of the others, and have admixed not just within their current ranges! Leaving the wolf/coyote camp aside, shortly I will place the findings across the other Canis species, which are comparably straight forward.
3. Early next year, by which time the eastern wolf/red wolf should have settled down, I will address the ancestral wolf/coyote lineage that has been admixed with a ghost population of an extinct canid that is described as being "close to the dhole". The coyote retains much of the more ancient mitogenome of this canid than the wolf, and this is why mitochondrial DNA sequencing shows the coyote basal to the wolf.
4. The Gopalakrishnan 2018 team was no doubt aware of the yet unreleased Larson-team article sitting on Biorxiv - the Holocene grey wolf came out of Beringia at the close of the Pleistocene and replaced all other lupus across its range (except for the Himalayan wolf, which may be an ancient survivor or admixed with something more basal, with further specimens and work called for). As there is no evidence of a coyote ancestor outside of North America, the authors assume that the "ghost canid" may have existed in North America, even hinting controversially at perhaps the American dhole (whose only fossil has been found in San Josecito Cave in northeastern Mexico, showing how scant the fossil record is - Tedford 2009) or the dire wolf! No DNA has been extracted from these two yet.
5. Let me suggest a third player (my conjecture only). We know that Gopalakrishnan 2018 indicates gene flow from the dhole into the African hunting dog. We also know that the ancestor of both (plus the extinct Sardinan dhole) is believed to be Xenocyon#Canis (Xenocyon) lycaonoides - we would expect to see its signature in the mDNA of both the dhole and the African hunting dog. We also know that it visited Beringia and northern Canada (Tedford 2009). Its timing would be right to meet the coyote/wolf ancestor around the second last glacial maximum (120k years ago). I propose that the ghost is lycaonoides. This would mean that Mario's recent sketch of lycaonoides and his work on the Sardinian dhole takes on a higher importance.
Let us watch how this new game unfolds. William Harris • (talk) • 21:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Canis |
| ||||||||||||||||||
And just to make things intriguing, the key phylotree - found in Supplementary diagram 2 from Gopalakrishnan 2018 - treats the dog as a separate species - woof! Their samples come from India, the Middle East and Africa including the Basenji. The researchers were possibly anticipating this to be the key admixture region and wanted the "local" dogs included to help identify any dog/canid cross-mixing. William Harris • (talk) • 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone: Some 18 months ago we finally got the Himalayan wolf-Tibetan wolf (filcheri)/Mongolian wolf (chanco) sorted out as per Wozencraft. Now our friend Werhahn 2017 has just released Werhahn 2018. The genetic findings are that the Himalayan wolf/Tibetan wolf is the one beast, the wolf to the north of the Tibetan Plateau is the "Holarctic grey wolf" (this includes an arc stretching from Mongolia to the sea), the Himalayan wolf diverged from the ancestral lineage well before the Holactic wolf, and that several wolves tested in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan to the north-west are Himalayan/Holarctic hybrids. For its name, I quote: "Canis chanco Gray 1863 is the first valid name proposed for this wolf lineage and hence has priority over the names used in the past." Just when we thought we were on top of things!
1847. Lupus laniger Hodgson, Calcutta J.N.H. 7: 474. Tibet. Not C. laniger H. Smith, 1840. The earlier description by Smith is presumably why laniger is not a valid name, which answers our question. Jts1882 | talk 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I was just reading the companion book of the 1992 BBC series The Velvet Claw [4] (about the natural history of carnivora), and reached the canid chapter, and of course thought of your articles. Ever seen it? Here is the canid episode on Youtube: [5] I watched it all on TV as a kid, one of the things that got me hooked on extinct mammals too and not just reptiles... It recreates extinct carnivores through drawn animation, which is pretty unique, compared to all the cheap CGI garbage these days. Maybe mariomassone is interested too, the entire series seems to be on Youtube. FunkMonk ( talk) 00:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Just a friendly heads up on The Dark Roses. You might want to review A7, which only requires that there be a claim of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. For notability issues, you'd need to use PROD or AfD.---- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone:. It is going to be another "champagne" year for the dog/wolf story. If you go to my Sandbox page, section titled First cut - current at December 2018, are you able to create a version of File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)) (Canis dirus).jpg with the blue background to match the other lupus pack, please? William Harris • (talk) • 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
I'm trying to access the original source for this, but I read a great story about a bad mob of dogs or dingos. When the author first heard the story she was not told what the concern was about sleeping in a particular remote site, because they did not want her to be afraid of every dog or dingo. She was told to build two fires and sleep in between, or be dragged off into the night, the 'reason' was initially said to be some form of local water monster. I suspect these were sealer's dogs, or pastoralist's escapees, introduced before the colonies were founded, but where they originate may be anybody's guess. I'll keep you apprised if this piques your interest. cygnis insignis 08:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you left me a message some time ago about something concerning Ro Thorpe. He and I knew each other for a number of years at Citizendium, the poor man's Wikipedia, where both of us shared common interests. I have checked my personal email account, and I see that he and I exchanged maybe 700 messages over the years *outside* of Citizendium. For the last six months or so, however, Ro has been totally quiet, and has not replied to any messages from me. I, and others at CZ, fear the worst, as I know that his health was not of the very best. Do *you*, by any chance, happen to know anything about him and his present circumstances? Thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce ( talk) 23:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi William,
FYI in case you have not seen it (appeared via my Facebook feed, published last week): https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4564.1.6/20622 Not sure what it affects in Wikipedia land, I will maybe leave it to you if still interested... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 20:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear William Harris,
You dismissed my contribution as "personal conjecture". I am afraid that you were "wide off the mark". Misunderstanding appears not to be a "reliable tutor".
Regards.
145.129.136.48 ( talk) 12:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello User:Nikkimaria. You have been most helpful with my WP:FAC submissions, and so I seek your advice. Back when I first began editing on Wikipedia, I managed to upload this file:
File:Kesslerloch Cave dog 14,500.jpg
which I understand now is non-free use. Are you able to delete it from Commons, please? William Harris • (talk) • 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, via Google Books: page 131, 2013 edition, https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZWLyAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=The+dog+encyclopedia.+Dennis-Bryan,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRo7KMkNzhAhWE2FkKHV1TCegQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Saluki&f=false Thanks for all your dedicated work on 'dog domestication'!-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 12:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks for the update. I do appreciate the problems with unreliable information and creative writing on the breed pages, but there is just so much I'm willing to do for Wikipedia. Looking forward to what GL et al publish and the wealth of questions they will raise.-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
William just noticed typo "obit" instead of "orbit" in your wolf skull diagram on ODD page. Apologies for the nuisance-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mario and others who watch this page. A new "consortium" has been formed, linking internationally recognised researchers who are working on the Golden Jackal (Hatlauf), African Golden Wolf (Sillero), and Himalayan Wolf (Werhahn).
Based on mDNA, the Golden Jackal appears to have emerged from northern India. The earliest fossils we have found date to 7,600 years ago, and it is perhaps a recently diverged species. The African Golden Wolf has recently been found to be a hybrid of the Ethiopian Wolf and some ancient form of grey wolf. Given that the "Himalayan Wolf" is a more ancient-lineage than the modern grey wolf, you can guess where this is all probably going. William Harris • (talk) • 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
William, I have recently received a graphic of, and a photo of the cast of, what has to be the famous Davis & Valla Natufian dog/human burial which in 1978 was originally dated to approx 12,000 yrs BP. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Davis11/publication/232793024_Evidence_for_domestication_of_the_dog_12000_years_ago_in_the_Natufian_of_Israel/links/5aeafde3a6fdcc03cd90d834/Evidence-for-domestication-of-the-dog-12-000-years-ago-in-the-Natufian-of-Israel.pdf Now The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History in Tel Aviv is promoting an age of approx 15,000 yrs BP. I don't know whether the find has been re-dated or if the the museum is 'bragging'. If you would like to see the photos I received, what is the best way for me to send them to you? richard.k.hawkins@gmail.com-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hi William, just found this, might be of interest if you have not previously seen it:
Who let the dogs in? A review of the recent genetic evidence for the introduction of the dingo to Australia and implications for the movement of people Melanie A. Fillios, Paul S.C. Taçon. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports Volume 7, June 2016, Pages 782–792
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16300694
(By the way, they use the name Canis dingo in that article).
Not sure if it contains anything new, but you never know. Cheers - Tony
Hello all watchers, the latest:
Looked at Y-chromosome (male lineage) rather than mDNA (female lineage). Key findings:
William Harris • (talk) • 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi William, just wondering if you have seen this:
The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species? STEPHEN M. JACKSON, COLIN P. GROVES, PETER J.S. FLEMING, KEN P. APLIN, MARK D.B. ELDRIDGE, ANTONIO GONZALEZ, KRISTOFER M. HELGEN - Zootaxa 4317, September 2017
The paper is here: http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4317.2.1
Here's a link to the full text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319470485_The_Wayward_Dog_Is_the_Australian_native_dog_or_Dingo_a_distinct_species
(their conclusion is that the dingo is a subspecies of domestic dog and is included within Canis familiaris).
Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tony, I have done further work on the Dingo (taxon) and Dingo articles. All good so far, so next stop the (always contentious) Dog. Based on the info you supplied above, it would appear that where I have said:
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gathered together a collection from the Cook voyage and classified the "New Holland dog" as Canis familiaris dingo Blumenbach, 1799
that would be incorrect taxonomy. The correct term should be Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793. If this is the case, then I will simply shorten the sentence to end with Canis familiaris dingo, else our average readers will become confused. You already have it listed in the taxobox. You may have an interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. William Harris • (talk) • 09:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Subsequently in 1799, in the 6th edition of his work Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach treated the dingo as a subspecies of the dog Canis familiaris, thus introducing the usage Canis familiaris dingo for Meyer's taxon.
Hi William, just looking at the dog page and it says this:
In the same year, an application was made to the ICZN to reclassify the dingo to Canis lupus dingo because it was proposed that the wolf (Canis lupus) was the ancestor of dogs and dingoes, however the application was rejected.[38]
This looks distinctly odd to me. ICZN rules on epithets (e.g. "dingo", "familiaris") (what they call species-group names, either at species or subspecies level), genera (genus-group names), and families (family-group names), but not in what combinations they are used (e.g. Canis lupus dingo vs. Canis dingo) - that is the practice of taxonomic opinion, which is outside the remit of ICZN so they would never be asked to rule on this. The info is sourced from "Smith, Bradley (2015). "Chapter 1:The Dingo Debate". In Bradley Smith. The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation" but still looks erroneous - perhaps a misunderstanding. I looked at that work and it merely cites MSW first edition, 1982 at this point. That chapter is also misinformed when it says that "the official taxonomic name of the dingo is Canis dingo". It is not; ICZN in effect ruled that that the *epithet* dingo is to be used as the approved available name for the dingo, as originally proposed in the combination Canis dingo Meyer, however it is not restricted to that combination (which is a taxonomic, not a nomenclatural, assertion). So Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo, and Canis lupus dingo are all in accord with that ICZN Opinion, and (as stated above), the ICZN would have no position on which is "correct" or "official". Just letting you know... Tony 1212 ( talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Opinion 451 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, shall be the oldest available name for the Dingo of Australia (class Mammalia)( source) The ruling suppressed antarcticus. Unfortunately, these rulings often get misinterpreted as declaring it a species. The Jackson et al (2017) Wayward Dog article explains this clearly. Jts1882 | talk 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
More misinformation I'm afraid... from the current Dog page, and probably elsewhere:
In 1926, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) ruled in Opinion 91 that the domestic dog Canis familiaris be placed on its Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology.[3]
Not true. In 1926, Opinion 91, The ICZN placed Canis on the Official List of generic names. It was not until 1955 (Direction 22) that familiaris, Canis was added to the Official List, in a ruling that added type species of a number of mammal genera to the List, see here: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34652714 . In this case, this means that Canis familiaris is the recognised type species for Canis and that any other competing names for the same taxon are unavailable.
Now that is also interesting for another reason (as well as meaning the quoted text is incorrect) - it means in effect (my reading) that if C. familiaris and C. lupus are considered synonymous at species level, then C. familiaris takes precedence, i.e. C. lupus should be a synonym of C. familiaris and not the other way around.
Because this is contrary to current practice e.g. in MSW, I may have to ask my Taxacom colleagues for their considered opinion - unless you have info on this that I do not from your prior consultations?? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 08:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ FunkMonk:, @ Mariomassone:. I just learned about Corinne's passing after dropping into her Talk page to say hello. Additionally, her favorite contact on grammatical matters, User:Rothorpe who had larynx cancer, has not been active on Wikipedia nor heard from since last year. Very sad news. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello M, if that was your proposal earlier today on the Talk page of an article, I am not committing to any new undertakings on Wikipedia at present, even though I generated 3 FA-level wolf articles last year. The "flagship" report on wolves and dogs is due before November, so I am not taking on new commitments until it has been released and integrated onto Wikipedia. To set the scene for it, Freedman and Wayne have jointly authored a summary of all the research - and its shortcomings - up to the end of 2016 here. Additionally, Thalmann and Perri have summarised the genetic evidence up to this year in a secondary source here. These 2 writings set the scene for a future study that would use ancient DNA sequencing across a large number of widely dispersed specimens and a knowledge of ancient human migrations. That would be Larson. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Oknazevad: and @ Mariomassone:. You both have an interest in the two wolf matters below, and the 3 of us have been around Canis long enough to seek each others advice or provide further explanation - we tend to agree more than we disagree on many matters. (I shall never forget that after vonHoldt 2016 was released - "the wolf is a coyote is a wolf" - and raised on the redwolf page, 5 minutes later you were both engaged in a "dog-fight" with one of the locals over on the coyote page.)
When I first read this article, it was clearly badged Canis himalayensis, both in text and in taxobox (with a bunch of hard-cores keeping it that way.) As Woz made no mention of himalayensis in MSW3, I did some research on the taxonomy of the wolves of the Tibetan region. As a result I did the following:
Off the top of my head, the following have found the "Himalayan wolf" to be a "distinct lineage" (evolutionary biologist-speak for a different species or something close to that): Aggawahl 2003, Sharma 2004, Aggawahl 2007, Leonard 2007, Pilot 2010, Koepfli 2015, Werhahn 2017. The massive work of Thalmann 2013 ("the dog is the descendant of an extinct Western European cave wolf domesticated in the time of hunter-gatherers") refused to include his two Himalayan (or Tibetan) wolf specimens as not being representative of lupus. We have secondary sourcing in Miklosi 2015 and at least one of Larson's summary papers acknowledged them. No researcher has disputed that this is a unique lineage, as opposed to the red wolf or the eastern wolf which remain debated. The DNA phylotree does not depict species, it depicts DNA lineages. These lineages on the whole happen to coincide with species (but there are some other odd ones, the "Indian grey wolf" comes to mind). Wikipedia has an article on the Himalayan wolf (I await the day that I can roll it under the Tibetan wolf, but not just yet...) and I believe that it would be remiss of us not to include the Himalayan wolf in the phylogenetic tree of wolf-like canids. It is not as if the wolf does not exist, nor that no research has been done. At no time have I called for the recognition of the Himalayan wolf as himalayensis, by my actions I have done the opposite.
Where does this leave us?
Once these issues are attended to, then we may have some idea of what we are dealing with. I have left the Himalayan wolf in the DNA phylotree - if either of you still have an issue with this then please let me know your views and we can develop a compromise.
Another study on the red wolf. Despite its title, it is a full review of its history and there is an advanced academic copy available here: https://academic.oup.com/jhered/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhered/esy020/5034846?guestAccessKey=ab4a2828-6103-4bb3-a099-0bc09ad1155c
You both will have noticed that I have put a bit of effort into redwolf taxonomy and the taxonomic debate. I am not sure how to progress from here. The remainder of the section "Genetic evidence" from vonHoldt 2011 onwards is convoluted and perhaps incorrect in parts, with more "he said, she said" accounts. The future debate will centre on whole-genome analysis, and currently that section of the article is up to date. My options for the rest of the "Genetic evidence" section are:
I would like to hear your views on what next. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello all watchers, this huge step forward in the process of dog domestication has finally been released:
Our results identify genes that act early in embryogenesis and can confer phenotypes distinguishing domesticated dogs from wolves, such as tameness, smaller jaws, floppy ears, and diminished craniofacial development as the targets of selection during domestication. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0535-2 William Harris • (talk) • 22:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone: there are some nice wolf icons appearing on articles within my strategic interest; many thanks. No canines have appeared in Wikipedia:Today's featured article for some time, and so it is approaching time for Golden jackal to be able to make its appearance there. It would be nice to pick a preferred date for publishing that might be related to the article in some fashion. If you have any preference then please let me know, else I shall progress with the nearest available date in April. William Harris • (talk) • 07:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
A date? Well... 17 August would be an idea, as it would be the third anniversary of the publication of the discovery of Canis anthus. @ William Harris: Mariomassone ( talk) 07:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
history of the dog | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1688 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
Thank you for the Lessons from Corinne, above! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Golden jackal, "a Eurasian canine that is similar in appearance to a small gray wolf" --
This is to let you know that I've scheduled Golden jackal to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 17 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on the article's Talk page. Insisting that your version of the article is correct without doing so is vandalism. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Mariomassone: - its on! Modern wolves trace their origin to a late Pleistocene expansion from Beringia. We cannot use this yet, it is a Biorxiv preprint for peer review. Signed off by Larson himself! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/07/18/370122.full.pdf And yes, the Himalayan wolf and the Indian grey wolf both cannot be included with these; further work needed. William Harris • (talk) • 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Red Wolf aficionados @ Mariomassone: and @ Oknazevad:. There is a new article undergoing peer review - Rediscovery of red wolf ghost alleles in a canid population along the American Gulf Coast: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/18/420356
Briefly, there have been found canids - largely coyote - on Galveston Island, Texas with redwolf alleles (gene expressions) left from a ghost population. These are from a different population to the redwolves in the captive breeding program. More importantly, the evolutionary biologists propose these expressions can be bred back.
L. Rutledge and RKW have argued over the nature of the enigmatic North American canids for the past 20 years. In 2016, B. vonHoldt and RKW told us that based on whole genome sequences, the red wolf was a recent coyote/lupus hybrid. Rutledge and team immediately rebutted it. Now take a look at the authors of this paper on Canis rufus. It would appear that BvH has "dispersed" from the RKW-pack to become alpha for the L.R.-pack. (This may indicate that she has changed her mind on rufus or else both parties are now moving towards a combined position, which would be most helpful right now.) William Harris • (talk) • 10:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I came across this image file ( File:Cerdocyon timeline.png) and wondered if you recognised it. It looks like it is a clip from a published paper rather than the uploaders own work and probably violates copyright.
While looking I found an article ( Zrzavý et al, 2018) which has a comprehensive combined morphological and molecular phylogenetic analysis of extant and extinct canines, including a variety of Canis species. The topology is quite different to the schemes in Evolution of the wolf. Jts1882 | talk 07:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
no spell check or grammar check at eucla, last time I went through JarrahTree 10:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, William Harris. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Happy Wolfenoot to you! -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Mariomassone:, interesting stuff, it reminds me of Wilson's 2000 diagram at Red wolf#Genetic evidence. You know that Greger has not officially published his wolves from Beringia study yet, but he did promised me "more soon". Given that he is attempting to track down both where the dog AND the wolf came from, I will give him a couple of months to deliver. Else, I may be in need of either (a) your canid icon with the question mark on it, or (b) your development of something that resembles being between a dhole and a grey wolf! (This stuff never ends.....) William Harris • (talk) • 09:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone: and @ Oknazevad: (and JTS, Dodger, and any others who also watch this page). Thanks for your support in getting the eastern wolf and red wolf pages sorted out.
1. I have been working slowly over the past year - so as not to "spook the horses" - to bring the eastern wolf and the red wolf back into the lupus/latrans camp. This has now been finalized. I expect that there will be some disruptive editing on the red wolf over the next few months. Is there a third canid from eastern North America? No. Should the red wolf be recognized as a separate species? I agree with one of Bob Wayne's past comments: it is a hybrid, but one so unique it is worth preserving. Perhaps it should be recognized as a lupus/latrans ancient hybrid that has given rise to a new species, and we call that species C. rufus. Nobody has proposed that yet, and I will leave the evolutionary biologists and taxonomists to debate that one. vonHoldt has a new paper (see above section "Red Wolf article on Bio-archive") - it will be interesting to see if it is published in its current form after the findings of Sinding 2018.
2. So with the wolf/coyote camp now tidied up, the path is now clear for the Wikipedia wolf-world to reflect a much bigger picture, the findings of Gopalakrishnan 2018 (see section above "Gopalakrishnan, 2018") who is fairly much the same team from Sinding 2018, who also earlier mapped the wolf reference genome (along with Mr Larson). Where to start - most of the extant Canis has been admixing, some of them may be hybids of the others, and have admixed not just within their current ranges! Leaving the wolf/coyote camp aside, shortly I will place the findings across the other Canis species, which are comparably straight forward.
3. Early next year, by which time the eastern wolf/red wolf should have settled down, I will address the ancestral wolf/coyote lineage that has been admixed with a ghost population of an extinct canid that is described as being "close to the dhole". The coyote retains much of the more ancient mitogenome of this canid than the wolf, and this is why mitochondrial DNA sequencing shows the coyote basal to the wolf.
4. The Gopalakrishnan 2018 team was no doubt aware of the yet unreleased Larson-team article sitting on Biorxiv - the Holocene grey wolf came out of Beringia at the close of the Pleistocene and replaced all other lupus across its range (except for the Himalayan wolf, which may be an ancient survivor or admixed with something more basal, with further specimens and work called for). As there is no evidence of a coyote ancestor outside of North America, the authors assume that the "ghost canid" may have existed in North America, even hinting controversially at perhaps the American dhole (whose only fossil has been found in San Josecito Cave in northeastern Mexico, showing how scant the fossil record is - Tedford 2009) or the dire wolf! No DNA has been extracted from these two yet.
5. Let me suggest a third player (my conjecture only). We know that Gopalakrishnan 2018 indicates gene flow from the dhole into the African hunting dog. We also know that the ancestor of both (plus the extinct Sardinan dhole) is believed to be Xenocyon#Canis (Xenocyon) lycaonoides - we would expect to see its signature in the mDNA of both the dhole and the African hunting dog. We also know that it visited Beringia and northern Canada (Tedford 2009). Its timing would be right to meet the coyote/wolf ancestor around the second last glacial maximum (120k years ago). I propose that the ghost is lycaonoides. This would mean that Mario's recent sketch of lycaonoides and his work on the Sardinian dhole takes on a higher importance.
Let us watch how this new game unfolds. William Harris • (talk) • 21:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Canis |
| ||||||||||||||||||
And just to make things intriguing, the key phylotree - found in Supplementary diagram 2 from Gopalakrishnan 2018 - treats the dog as a separate species - woof! Their samples come from India, the Middle East and Africa including the Basenji. The researchers were possibly anticipating this to be the key admixture region and wanted the "local" dogs included to help identify any dog/canid cross-mixing. William Harris • (talk) • 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone: Some 18 months ago we finally got the Himalayan wolf-Tibetan wolf (filcheri)/Mongolian wolf (chanco) sorted out as per Wozencraft. Now our friend Werhahn 2017 has just released Werhahn 2018. The genetic findings are that the Himalayan wolf/Tibetan wolf is the one beast, the wolf to the north of the Tibetan Plateau is the "Holarctic grey wolf" (this includes an arc stretching from Mongolia to the sea), the Himalayan wolf diverged from the ancestral lineage well before the Holactic wolf, and that several wolves tested in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan to the north-west are Himalayan/Holarctic hybrids. For its name, I quote: "Canis chanco Gray 1863 is the first valid name proposed for this wolf lineage and hence has priority over the names used in the past." Just when we thought we were on top of things!
1847. Lupus laniger Hodgson, Calcutta J.N.H. 7: 474. Tibet. Not C. laniger H. Smith, 1840. The earlier description by Smith is presumably why laniger is not a valid name, which answers our question. Jts1882 | talk 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I was just reading the companion book of the 1992 BBC series The Velvet Claw [4] (about the natural history of carnivora), and reached the canid chapter, and of course thought of your articles. Ever seen it? Here is the canid episode on Youtube: [5] I watched it all on TV as a kid, one of the things that got me hooked on extinct mammals too and not just reptiles... It recreates extinct carnivores through drawn animation, which is pretty unique, compared to all the cheap CGI garbage these days. Maybe mariomassone is interested too, the entire series seems to be on Youtube. FunkMonk ( talk) 00:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Just a friendly heads up on The Dark Roses. You might want to review A7, which only requires that there be a claim of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. For notability issues, you'd need to use PROD or AfD.---- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello @ Mariomassone:. It is going to be another "champagne" year for the dog/wolf story. If you go to my Sandbox page, section titled First cut - current at December 2018, are you able to create a version of File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)) (Canis dirus).jpg with the blue background to match the other lupus pack, please? William Harris • (talk) • 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
I'm trying to access the original source for this, but I read a great story about a bad mob of dogs or dingos. When the author first heard the story she was not told what the concern was about sleeping in a particular remote site, because they did not want her to be afraid of every dog or dingo. She was told to build two fires and sleep in between, or be dragged off into the night, the 'reason' was initially said to be some form of local water monster. I suspect these were sealer's dogs, or pastoralist's escapees, introduced before the colonies were founded, but where they originate may be anybody's guess. I'll keep you apprised if this piques your interest. cygnis insignis 08:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you left me a message some time ago about something concerning Ro Thorpe. He and I knew each other for a number of years at Citizendium, the poor man's Wikipedia, where both of us shared common interests. I have checked my personal email account, and I see that he and I exchanged maybe 700 messages over the years *outside* of Citizendium. For the last six months or so, however, Ro has been totally quiet, and has not replied to any messages from me. I, and others at CZ, fear the worst, as I know that his health was not of the very best. Do *you*, by any chance, happen to know anything about him and his present circumstances? Thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce ( talk) 23:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi William,
FYI in case you have not seen it (appeared via my Facebook feed, published last week): https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4564.1.6/20622 Not sure what it affects in Wikipedia land, I will maybe leave it to you if still interested... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 20:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear William Harris,
You dismissed my contribution as "personal conjecture". I am afraid that you were "wide off the mark". Misunderstanding appears not to be a "reliable tutor".
Regards.
145.129.136.48 ( talk) 12:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello User:Nikkimaria. You have been most helpful with my WP:FAC submissions, and so I seek your advice. Back when I first began editing on Wikipedia, I managed to upload this file:
File:Kesslerloch Cave dog 14,500.jpg
which I understand now is non-free use. Are you able to delete it from Commons, please? William Harris • (talk) • 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, via Google Books: page 131, 2013 edition, https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZWLyAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=The+dog+encyclopedia.+Dennis-Bryan,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRo7KMkNzhAhWE2FkKHV1TCegQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Saluki&f=false Thanks for all your dedicated work on 'dog domestication'!-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 12:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks for the update. I do appreciate the problems with unreliable information and creative writing on the breed pages, but there is just so much I'm willing to do for Wikipedia. Looking forward to what GL et al publish and the wealth of questions they will raise.-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
William just noticed typo "obit" instead of "orbit" in your wolf skull diagram on ODD page. Apologies for the nuisance-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mario and others who watch this page. A new "consortium" has been formed, linking internationally recognised researchers who are working on the Golden Jackal (Hatlauf), African Golden Wolf (Sillero), and Himalayan Wolf (Werhahn).
Based on mDNA, the Golden Jackal appears to have emerged from northern India. The earliest fossils we have found date to 7,600 years ago, and it is perhaps a recently diverged species. The African Golden Wolf has recently been found to be a hybrid of the Ethiopian Wolf and some ancient form of grey wolf. Given that the "Himalayan Wolf" is a more ancient-lineage than the modern grey wolf, you can guess where this is all probably going. William Harris • (talk) • 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
William, I have recently received a graphic of, and a photo of the cast of, what has to be the famous Davis & Valla Natufian dog/human burial which in 1978 was originally dated to approx 12,000 yrs BP. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Davis11/publication/232793024_Evidence_for_domestication_of_the_dog_12000_years_ago_in_the_Natufian_of_Israel/links/5aeafde3a6fdcc03cd90d834/Evidence-for-domestication-of-the-dog-12-000-years-ago-in-the-Natufian-of-Israel.pdf Now The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History in Tel Aviv is promoting an age of approx 15,000 yrs BP. I don't know whether the find has been re-dated or if the the museum is 'bragging'. If you would like to see the photos I received, what is the best way for me to send them to you? richard.k.hawkins@gmail.com-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)